Although it has not really been said yet, there are other issues just besides the sensor itself. I upgraded from *istD to K10D not because of the sensor, but for card write speeds and a few other body features. So many might opt for a higher body for other features. The camera company would probably put the top sensor in it as well, but it could be for different reasons that one would buy the body. If Pentax came out with a body that could AF as well as the top Nikon or Canon and had flash metering on par with the top Nikon, I would have interest - not even caring whether the sensor was full frame or not.
-- Best regards, Bruce Monday, February 22, 2010, 9:08:36 PM, you wrote: TC> Hear that Pentax? No need to go higher, do R&D, develop new products TC> that keep up with the competition. TC> Oh, you already knew that? Excuse me. TC> Tom C. TC> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:51 PM, John Francis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Don't know about Paul, but I cvertainly would. If I were shooting >> Nikon I wouldn't feel the need for a D3x; for Canon I wouldn't see >> any point in paying through the nose for a 1Ds Mark whatever. >> >> I buy cameras that will do the job I need, not because they are the >> (current) top-of-the-line. And 14Mp is more pixels than I need; >> in fact the K10D (and, occasionally, the good old *ist-D) have more >> than enough pixels for nearly anything I want. Buying a camera just >> because somebody has stuck a "flagship" label on it is ridiculous. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:29:16PM -0700, Tom C wrote: >>> Paul, >>> >>> Respectfully, if Pentax came out with a 21MP or 24MP digital body in >>> FF similar to a Canon EOS 5D MKII or Nikon D3x in basic >>> specifications, are you saying you would not find or suspect it to be >>> a superior product to their current 14.6MP flagship? And that given >>> the option to go with what would likely be viewed as their top of the >>> line in the size factor, that you would choose a lesser model? >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:02 PM, paul stenquist <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > I have not intention of going FF. With my DA* lenses, the K7 delivers all >>> > the quality I need. I've been selling some 24 x 30 prints, and the detail >>> > and sharpness are excellent. I hope Pentax continues to play a lead role >>> > in APS format. Their lens development strategy indicates that this >>> > exactly what is planned. >>> > Paul >>> > On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Tom C wrote: >>> > >>> >> I understand exactly what Boris is saying. ?If a 35mm sensor is 1.5x >>> >> that of an APS-C sensor, then given the same pixel density, one can >>> >> expect a significant increase in resolution using a FF 35mm sensor >>> >> over an APS-C sensor. Many people already have the 35mm lenses. >>> >> >>> >> I don't buy the digital lens superiority over those that were made for >>> >> 35mm film systems. ?Maybe there are some benefits here and there, at >>> >> certain f-stops but I've been getting great results with FF lenses on >>> >> digital bodies. Yes I know it's with the sweet spot of the lens, and >>> >> yes I know about chromatic aberration and vignetting with FF, and of >>> >> course the noise issue with increased pixel count overall. ?As far as >>> >> I'm concerned those all are excuses made when when one doesn't have a >>> >> full FF body to offer to go along with a complement of FF lenses. >>> >> >>> >> There's a good reason why other mfrs have a FF body in their lineup. >>> >> Specifically, Nikon, Canon and Sony do not have a sensor to offer that >>> >> is > 35mm FF format. ?So the 35mm FF format allows their user base to >>> >> realize an increase in resolution over APS-C that is significant and >>> >> detectable in tests, using their existing lenses and presumed >>> >> purchases of new FF lenses. Those mfrs have not been unsuccessful with >>> >> these products. >>> >> >>> >> I wager if Pentax came out with a FF 35mm format body, virtually every >>> >> single person claiming they were perfectly satisfied with APS-C and >>> >> could afford it, would jump to FF, in much the same manner that many >>> >> did not need anything greater than a 6MP DSLR before there was >>> >> anything better offered by Pentax. >>> >> >>> >> Tom C. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Nothing wrong with a bigger sensor and more pixels. >>> >>> >>> >>> That said, I have no urge to change from what I'm using now. At all. >>> >>> It's working fine for my photography. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Godfrey >>> >>> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> >>> follow the directions. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> >> follow the directions. >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> > follow the directions. >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
